Transcript An uneasy balance - Serendip Studio's One World

An uneasy balance
Science advising in the federal government
and the politicization of science
Karen F. Greif, Dept of Biology
Challenges in science policymaking
• Rapid technological changes that create novel
issues
• Complex technologies that are difficult for nonscientists to understand
• Concerns that consequences of decisions may be
irreversible (Pandora’s box?)
• Public worries about threats to health and safety
• New developments that challenge deeply held
social, ethical and religious values
Scientific input in decision-making
• “Policy for science”: federal funding for
scientific research
– Determines directions of research
• “Science for policy”: science advising
– Federal advisory committees
– Congressional testimony and advice
– Lobbying
Science Advising in the
Executive Branch
• Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology (unfilled in the Bush administration)
• Director of the Office of Science and Technology
(OSTP) : John Marburger
• National Science and Technology Council
• President’s Council on Science and Technology
(PCAST)
• President’s Council on Bioethics
• Cabinet Directors and Administrators
Does advising work in the Executive
Branch?
• Depends on the interest of the President
– Without the “ear” of the President, no advisor will be
effective
– Since advisors are chosen to reflect Administration
ideology, is advice balanced?
• Delays in filling positions
– Over 500 President-appointed senior level
appointments overall!
– Rigorous background checks
– Requirements for Senate confirmation
– Low salaries
Science and Congress
• Budget decisions (Policy for science)
• Legislation on science-informed issues
With advice from
• Congressional staffers or outside experts
• Government support agencies:
– Government Accountability Office (GAO)
– Office of Technology Assessment (OTA, (closed 1995))
• Independent organizations
– National Research Council (NRC) of the National
Academies of Science (NAS, NAE, IOM)
– Brookings Inst., Heritage Fdn., Cato Inst., etc (all with
political agendas)
Federal Agencies
• Role is to create functional policy in response to
new laws
• For the biological sciences: DHHS (includes the
NIH, FDA, CDC); National Science Foundation
(NSF); Dept. of Agriculture; EPA; DOD
(bioterrorism policy); Dept. of the Interior (FWS),
etc
• Limited autonomy and strongly influenced by
Administration agendas. Congress can block
activities by limiting budgets.
Advisory Committees and FACA
• Hundreds of standing committees focus on science
and technology issues
• Ad-hoc committees may be established on new
topics
• The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA;
1972)
– Limits numbers of committees
– Requires “transparency” in deliberations
– Mandates that committee membership be “balanced”
with representatives of accomplishment and expertise
What is a good policy?
• An effective policy should be cost-effective
and fair, place limited demands on
government, and provide assurance to the
public that its goals will be met.
• An effective policy may represent a
compromise between competing viewpoints.
Science and Politics
• From the scientists’ perspective: policy making
should involve careful consideration of scientific
data and result in policies that are in line with the
findings and recommendations of science.
However, scientific data are rarely “complete” and
some degree of uncertainty is inevitable.
• From the politicians’ viewpoint: science is one
piece of input in the political process and may be
trumped by political values and necessities. If
scientists cannot provide clear answers, then their
advice is of limited value.
The selective use of science
• If the data do not support an Administration’s
position:
–
–
–
–
–
order additional studies (delay, delay…)
claim that the data are based on poor research
discredit the scientists who conducted the work
claim that the data are biased
ignore the data
Skewing federal advisory
committees
• Don’t empanel anyone (no committee, no conflicts)
• Claim that any scientist receiving federal research
support is “tainted” by an agenda to gain additional
funding (limits expertise)
• Don’t appoint committee members who hold
opinions that differ from that of an Administration
(litmus tests)
Some historical examples
• Pres. Richard Nixon threw all science advising out
of the White House because he objected to “leftleaning” scientists who made recommendations
against his own projects. Congress mandated the
establishment of the OSTP in 1976 in response.
• Pres. Ronald Reagan failed to fill many critical
science advisory positions to block enforcement of
regulations unpopular with his Administration
• Many conservatives claim that Pres. Bill Clinton
stacked his advisory committees with “proregulatory” scientists
Pres. George W. Bush and a new level of
politicization of science?
• The failure to reappoint two members of the President’s
Council on Bioethics who supported human cloning and
stem cell research
• Claims of political “litmus tests” for candidates for science
advisory committees
• Suppression of portions of reports on global warming and
other sensitive issues
• Manipulation of agency informational websites (CDC and
reproductive health)
• Blocking the World Health Organization from directly
approaching scientists to serve on advisory committees
(Director of DHHS must now nominate individuals)
What can be done?
• Improve science advising for Congress to reduce
the dominance of the Executive Branch (reestablish the OTA)
• Regularize science advising in the Executive
Branch by supporting changes in the approval
process
• Insulate committees from ideology, but permit
differing interpretations
• Involve the public more in deliberations
Return to Summary of Brown Bag Discussion